Monday, July 03, 2017

Terrorist murder of Hadas Malka (Z'L)

On Friday evening, I noticed a helicopter hovering over the Old City. This surprised me, seeing as there didn't seem to be much violence with the nearly 200,000 Muslims (including hundreds allowed in from the Gaza Strip, even!) who defiled the Temple Mount earlier in the day. (This is the Islamic month of Ramadan, in which major roads in Jerusalem are reserved for Muslim-only traffic into the Old City. It takes me about an hour to go visit my mother via another route, in a trip which normally takes me 20 minutes in the usual, direct route. I bet you don't hear about this in the media.)

It was only Saturday evening, Motza'ei Shabbat, that I could check the news reports and heard that Hadas Malka had been murdered by three Palestinian terrorists. She was 23 years old at the time of her death; the Pali murderers were 18. They used knives and a gun in their attack and were shot to death by other officers on the street. This happened near Sha'ar Shchem, aka Damascus Gate, on the north wall of the Old City. Police officers and Border Patrol troops have been attacked (and killed) there before. In fact, 19-year old Hadar Cohen was murdered in the very same spot just a year ago. Both Hadar and Hadas were young women serving in the Border Patrol, which is actually an arm of the Israel Police force.

My immediate thoughts were on the futility of it all. Hadas was buried Saturday night. She will be pretty much forgotten very quickly, as Hadar was last year. Young lives snuffed out for nothing at all. This won't "liberate" any imaginary "Palestine". Ever. It's just killing for the sake of killing. The three young Pali terrorists - taught to hate by the mosque across the street from their homes, by their parents, by Palestinian Authority propaganda, by the UNRWA school system that funds the spreading of hate with Dollars and Euros - have ended their lives for no good purpose, either. (The mother of one of the murderers proclaimed that she wished that they had killed 50 or 60 times as many Yahud [Jews]. The PA will now grant a lavish stipend to the families of the murderers forever, unless someone puts a stop to that madness, too.)

But then it got worse. When I looked for international media coverage of this attack in Jerusalem by Palestinian terrorists, I found references mostly in places like the Jewish News, and Israeli media. The rest of the world didn't seem to notice. The BBC did have something to say: they tweeted: "Three Palestinians killed after deadly stabbing in Jerusalem". Not an Israeli policewoman murdered, but three Palis killed. This was as misleading a headline for Fake News as the BBC can contrive.

Last night, someone drove a van through a crowd of people in the vicinity of a mosque in London. Within a short time, there were over 1,000 news reports on this at Google News. Must be a "Man Bites Dog" story, Muslims hurt by a Jihadi-style ramming attack. Just now, something else happened in Paris, apparently a car ramming attack. Nearly 100 news items about this appeared at Google News almost immediately. When a police officer is attacked in London or a sentry on guard is murdered in Ottowa or a police van is hit in Paris, it's global news immediately. But when an Israeli officer is murdered in Jerusalem by cowardly Palestinian Jihadis, the media doesn't take notice. Repeatedly.

With years and years of fawning headlines and stories about Palestinian terrorists and their unfounded claims and propagandistic grievances, it is not surprising that so many uninformed people in so many places - including Lefty but ignorant Jews who should know better - are babbling about Israel "stealing land" and the "brutal occupation" in the safest and most free country in the Middle East (for Arabs!) and "illegal settlements" being an "obstacle to peace in the Middle East" and describing Muslim immigrants and foreign invaders as "indigenous Palestinians" and so much other hogwash. Perhaps that was the intent of the "journalists" in the first place. No one seems interested in the truth anymore. History will never be the same.

Iran’s Ayatollah: ‘All Muslims Are Duty-Bound to Campaign and Carry Out Jihad’ Against Israel

Speaking Monday on the occasion of Eid al Fitr, the Muslim feast marking the end of the month of Ramadan, the Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran’s so-called “Leader of the Islamic Revolution,” declared that all Muslims “are duty bound” to carry out Jihad against Israel—which he referred to as “the Zionist regime.”

“Unity and avoiding division benefits all Muslim countries and through harmony over the issue of Palestine as the foremost problem of the Muslim world, it must be prevented from being diminished or forgotten,” the ayatollah said, according to a statement about the speech posted on the ayatollah's English-language website.

“Palestine is the foremost issue of the Muslim world, but some Muslim countries act in such a way that is meant to make the issue of Palestine ignored and forgotten,” he said.

“According to Islamic jurisprudence,” said the ayatollah, “once faced with the domination of the enemy over Islamic territory, all Muslims are duty-bound to campaign and carry out jihad in whatever possible form and, therefore, fighting against the Zionist regime is incumbent upon and mandatory for the entire Islamic world.”

As a young man coming from a left-wing pedigree, I embraced a liberal agenda which included most notably, a belief in Israel as a bastion of socialism and democracy. In the 1950s, a good progressive was a good Zionist. Oh, how the world has changed. Now a progressive has moved 180 degrees to an anti-Zionist position. As one wag put it, the left is now the congenial home of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Linda Sarsour, the leader of the Woman's March in Washington and a commencement speaker at the City University of New York, clearly embodies the new spirit on the left. She has praised Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, once anathema to liberals. She has honored Embrased Rasmesh Odeh, a terrorist murderer. She has spoken in favor of Shariah finance. One of the supporters of Ms. Sarsour said, "Nothing is creepier than Zionism."

What is truly remarkable, and to some degree ideologically shattering, is that The New York Times wrote a fawning profile about this woman who challenges all liberal principles. She had the audacity to say that "the vagina of Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be taken away," the same Ayaan who has worked so hard to promote women's rights throughout the Muslim world. Yet the Anti-Defamation League defends Ms. Sarsour. Why do liberals not recognize that the Muslim countries do not give women and people in the LGBT community the same civil rights that Israel does?

For the left, Zionism has promoted Islamophobia - a false critique from the standpoint of Islamists. As a consequence, anti-Semitism is rendered a virtue, as a way to discourage negative sentiment about Islam. Yet even when the evidence of anti-Semitism is incontrovertible, the left contends anti-Semitism is a figment of a hysterical, oversensitive imagination. For the most part, Jews are being systematically written out of the progressive agenda, even though they were responsible for that agenda in the first place. But why quibble?

This new age, already upon us, has sheltered many Jews from the harsh reality of contemporary progressivism. Jews still gravitate to a Democratic Party led by two men (Tom Perez and Keith Ellison) avowedly anti-Zionist. In casual conversation, Jews will say Democrats represent grass-roots movements and people. However, it is important to note the party of the hard left is the government party relying on rules and mandates imposed by Washington D.C. bureaucrats. It no longer represents the blue-collar worker who built the party during the New Deal.

At the Chicago "Dyke March" held recently, Jewish pride flags were banned because Jews "made people feel unsafe" and, after all, the march was pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. The irony is that the Dyke March preaches inclusion and is billed as "anti-racist, anti-violent, volunteer-led grass-roots mobilization and celebration of dyke, queer, bisexual and transgender resilience." Yes, the march includes every permutation of homosexuality, but it does not include Jews, presumably these are the people found to be "offensive."

In January 2016, a Shabbat service and reception for Jewish participants at a gay conference in Chicago was disrupted by hundreds of protesters who chanted, "Hey hey, ho ho, pinkwashing has got to go." Pinkwashing is a term to describe efforts by Israel to cover up its treatment of Palestinians by touting its strong record on gay rights. What the incident shows is that even on gay rights Israel will not be given the benefit of the doubt because anti-Zionism trumps homosexual acceptance.

That progressives would find common quarter with Islamists is the shocking part of this ideological evolution. Obviously, secularism has played a role for many Jews. But the Anti-Defamation League's support for the Council on American - Islamic Relations is nothing short of jarring, despite the extent of Jewish secularization.

To have been a progressive and to see how the word and movement have gone through the caldron of ideological change demonstrates the influence of Orwellian logic. Orthodoxy is liberalism, dogma is openness; Shariah is expansive. Who would have thought that the modern Jew would imbibe this logic? But as Norman Podhoretz noted in his splendid book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?" Jews are liberal because liberalism is the new religion of Jews

Angela Merkel’s welcome mat: Refugees roil the German public with an election approaching

Only the hard-hearted would slam the door against a refugee. Their stories are heart-breaking and their courage in seeking a better life in a new home is remarkable. Nevertheless, refugees in uncontrolled number are a headache for everyone. Germany, held up as a nation with a big heart, is learning the cost of Angela Merkel’s big heart. More than a million refugees have arrived since 2015.

Nearly 3 of 4 refugees admitted will struggle to take care of themselves, the German Institute for Employment Research finds. A new survey suggests they’ll probably stay for years on the public dole. The institute finds that fewer than half arriving from Syria, the largest source of refugees, arrive with the equivalent of a high school diploma, and barely 1 in 5 have a college degree. Nearly half a million of them stand in the unemployment line, up by more than a hundred thousand from last year.

The good news is that the number of asylum seekers in Germany dropped by 600,000 in 2016. Aydan Ozoguz, commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration, tells London’s Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers will enter the labor market over the next five years, “and for many others we will need up to 10 years [to get them settled].”

Syrians, fleeing an interminable civil war, are followed in number by Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Eritreans and Albanians. Together they’re a political headache for Chancellor Merkel, whose poll numbers have declined over the past year leading up to the federal elections in late September. She has had a generous hand in welcoming refugees and immigrants, and most of them are Muslims who find it difficult to adapt and adjust to the religious and political freedom and responsibilities in the West. Pollsters say absorbing the million or more migrants is the top concern of German voters.

The unprecedented number of refugees in 2015 created an enormous backlog of applications for residence — more than 430,000 currently are waiting for clearance now. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees has cleared more cases than ever before, says Thomas de Maiziere, the German interior minister, considerably more than twice as many in the year before. The number of government clerks has been quadrupled to clear the backlog.

“The [refugee office] is now out of the woods,” he says, “and with wind in its sails. Every month more decisions are made than applications received, so the backlog is being cleared.” More than 50,000 migrants voluntarily returned to their home countries last year, and another 25,000 were deported.

Mrs. Merkel, mindful of Germany’s record in the 20th century, wanted to play Lady Bountiful with her wide-open door, and during the height of the refugee wave, with hundreds drowning in the perilous passage in flimsy boats across the Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea, she was widely acclaimed. But the size of the refugee wave surpassed expectations, and public opinion shifted dramatically.

Her open-door policy was blamed for enabling terrorism arriving with the migrants, and when an Islamic migrant from Tunisia drove a truck into a popular Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 and wounding 56 holiday shoppers, the incident galvanized public opinion. It forced a review of national security.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties. The tide turned in 2017, however, with a public vote authorizing homosexual marriage in Australia

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here